On Mar 24, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
> There is also the interesting assertion that in the US the NBS was
> responsible for frequency and USNO was responsible for time.
No comment (or strong opinion) about the politics. Frequency and time are not,
however, interchangeable concepts even if they are closely related. SI
(through whatever national and international authorities) is founded on a
frequency reference. See:
http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/jres.116.022
in which the keystone of the entire international system of units is a
frequency standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relations_between_new_SI_units_definitions.png
Time, on the other hand, is a complex concept of diverse meanings. It will
come as no surprise that I regard civil timekeeping as most closely allied with
its meaning as an angular reference.
It could bring clarity to the discussion to clearly delineate frequency use
cases from duration use cases. Whether both kinds of timepiece are managed by
the same agency is a separate question.
Rob
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
